Esther Landhuis

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – Before considering oral steroids or biologic therapies, many people with difficult-to-control asthma can reduce symptoms by addressing medication adherence and inhaler technique – and digital monitoring devices can play a key role.

Often physicians “will approach a patient about a biologic if they’re not responding to standard therapy. But we need to sometimes go back to those basic building blocks, like, are you taking the standard therapy?” William C. Anderson, MD, codirector of the multidisciplinary asthma clinic at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, he and others presented data highlighting the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of digital monitoring devices for difficult-to-control asthma, the theme of the 2022s meeting.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) defines asthma as “difficult to control” if it remains uncontrolled despite medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a second controller or with maintenance oral steroids, or if the asthma requires high-dose treatment to curb symptoms and exacerbations. About 17% of adult asthma patients have difficult-to-control asthma, according to the 2021 GINA report. 

However, correcting for inhaling technique and adherence cuts the 17% down to just 3.7%, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, an allergist at NorthShore University HealthSystem outside Chicago and AAAAI immediate past president, told attendees at a Feb. 25 session on digital technologies for asthma management.

The CRITIKAL study, which reviewed data from more than 5,000 asthma patients, “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Mosnaim said. Sadly, it also shows that, from 1975 to 2014, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

As for ways to measure adherence, physician judgments tend to be inaccurate, patient self-reporting has proved unreliable, and prescription refill data doesn’t indicate whether patients actually used the medications. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.” 
 

Tracking adherence

A closing afternoon session featured three presentations on research tracking adherence and outcomes in difficult-to-treat asthma patients – two pediatric cohorts and one across all ages. All studies used the Propeller Health sensor, a Food and Drug Administration–cleared device that attaches to the patient’s inhaler and automatically collects information on where, when, and how often they use their medication. The sensor then sends that information to a data cloud accessible to the patient and their health care professional.

Dr. Anderson’s team scoured a nationwide Propeller Health database for 8,000 patients using the digital monitors with controller therapies for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study explored whether adherence differed for once-daily versus twice-daily medications, and if adherence differed based on patient age (4-60+ years).

For both asthma and COPD patients, those on once-daily regimens had higher medication adherence, compared with those who were prescribed twice-daily therapies. Plus, a greater proportion of once-daily patients met the prespecified 80% adherence threshold.

Looking across ages, medication use in the youngest group (aged 4-11 years) looked comparable with 30-somethings, “probably because parents are the ones giving the drug,” Dr. Anderson said. Mirroring patterns from other studies, adherence levels dipped in adolescents and young adults, relative to other age subsets.

Since this population-level analysis didn’t include individualized data on exacerbations or asthma control, “we can’t relate this to outcomes,” Dr. Anderson noted. But he said the data correlating medication use with adherence suggest that once-daily formulations may be the better option.

In one of the two pediatric studies, Matt McCulloch, MD, an allergy and immunology fellow working with Dr. Anderson, and colleagues reviewed charts of 40 children who received care at the Colorado Children’s multidisciplinary asthma clinic between 2018 and 2021. Half of these patients used Propeller Health sensors with their daily inhaled controller; the other patients were matched for age, ethnicity, sex, medication level, and disease control and severity – but had no electronic monitoring device.

On the whole, children who used digital monitoring for 12 months did not fare much better than matched controls on lung function (judged by forced expiratory volume) or asthma control (measured by Asthma Control Test scores).

However, within the digital monitoring group, patients who stayed on the Propeller system for 12 months did have better asthma control, fewer exacerbations, and improved asthma severity scores (measured by the Composite Asthma Severity Index), compared with when they first began digital monitoring. These children had all received care at the clinic for a while before their families opted for the electronic sensor, so “the effect wouldn’t have just been from starting in the clinic,” Dr. McCulloch said in an interview.

The gains came despite waning medication adherence. Similar to other digital monitoring studies, use of daily controller therapies in this retrospective analysis began at 50%-80% but dropped considerably during the first 4-5 months before settling into the 20%-30% range by 1 year.

Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented data from 20 children with difficult-to-treat asthma who received 8 weeks of a digital adherence intervention during a 12-month treatment period. They analyzed three subsets – each with interventions based on how well the patients were managing daily controller therapy at baseline.

One patient with high (>80%) baseline adherence just received digital monitoring. The seven patients who began the study with intermediate (50%-80%) adherence received digital monitoring plus prescriptive text messaging. And the 12 children with poorest (<50%) baseline adherence received digital monitoring and a telehealth session in which a behavioral health specialist helped them set goals and create strategies to overcome barriers – for example, keeping the inhaler near their toothbrush in order to pair medication use with a daily habit.

“Overall, we found that matching Propeller with a behavioral intervention really improved adherence,” Dr. Ramsey said in an interview. While patients were receiving the intervention, adherence averaged across all groups increased from 39% to 76%. However, once the intervention period ended, the group’s adherence regressed toward baseline (36%).

Although adherence did not associate with clinical gains in this small study, the use of digital monitoring to improve medication adherence has translated to better outcomes in other recent efforts.
 

Remote monitoring

In a quality improvement project in the United Kingdom, nurses asked difficult-to-control asthma patients if they understood how to use their corticosteroid/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) inhalers and if they were adhering to treatment guidelines.

Those who answered yes to these questions were invited to a 28-day study that involved swapping their steroid/LABA inhalers for a different controller/bronchodilator (fluticasone/salmeterol) with INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment), a device that not only tracks adherence but also uses acoustics to gauge inhaler technique.

Among the 23 patients who participated, many had better clinical outcomes after 28 days of INCA monitoring. As Dr. Mosnaim told attendees, “what was amazing is so many of the patients that had been these difficult-to-control asthmatics who would have gone on to oral steroids or perhaps a biologic – lo and behold, you put them on a digital inhaler, and what do you see?” In two-thirds of the patients, “you see FeNo [a test that measures airway inflammation by detecting nitric oxide in exhalations] goes down. You see spirometry improve. You see the asthma control questionnaire improve. You see blood eosinophils go down.”

And in a 2020 randomized trial, Dr. Mosnaim and colleagues recruited 100 adults with uncontrolled asthma who had prescriptions for a daily inhaled corticosteroid and a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) inhaler. Participants received Propeller sensors for their steroid and SABA inhalers. After a 2-week run-in period to calculate baseline corticosteroid adherence and SABA use for all participants, half the participants were randomly assigned to the control group, which had the app and sensor in silent mode, merely to collect data on medication use – whereas the treatment group received reminders, alerts, and monthly phone calls from providers who gave feedback on adherence and technique.

After 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often – as judged by a rise in the percentage of SABA-free days, compared with when they began the study. But the change in SABA-free days relative to baseline was more pronounced in the treatment group (19%) than in the control group (6%).

As seen in the other digital monitoring studies, adherence to daily corticosteroids fell with time, but the drop was milder in treated participants (2%) versus the control group (17%). So in this study, digital monitoring plus mobile app reminders and clinician feedback “prevented against fall in adherence to inhaled steroids over time,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

These results are “very encouraging” and offer “proof of concept that this type of remote monitoring could work,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. One limitation was that the study was too short to measure exacerbation rates. A yearlong analysis would be “really fascinating because you’d catch all the seasons of the year – all the pollen seasons, all these things that could exacerbate you. Some people’s asthma can be quite seasonal.”

More important, the clinical utility of digital sensors will depend on how physicians choose to use them. If the doctor puts out a “blanket recommendation for using it but doesn’t ask you about it or doesn’t use the data to inform your care, then I think people just lose engagement and lose excitement over it,” Dr. Ramsey said. But if the health care team “asks you about the data or looks at the data with you or shows you how valuable this can be to your care, then I think that changes things.”

Building these analyses and interactions into the clinic workflow isn’t trivial. “If you have this wealth of data coming in, how are you going to look at it? Are you going to have an individual person assigned to this role? How are you going to respond to alerts?” Dr. Anderson asked.

In addition, because some digital monitors issue alerts when a patient’s asthma is not well controlled, some providers worry about liability if “something bad were to happen if you had that data but didn’t act upon it,” he said. Yet he noted that remote data monitoring is already used routinely in other areas of medicine, such as managing diabetes and heart conditions, “and it’s not like people are getting dinged for that stuff.”

Another issue is cost. Insurance only covers digital monitors in select cases, but it’s a bit of a catch-22. Insurers “don’t want to cover it until they get the data, but you can’t get the data until insurance covers it,” said Dr. Anderson, who added that “this year we finally got CPT reimbursement codes for monitoring devices.”

On the whole, studies of digital medication monitors suggest that better outcomes require “a good partnership between the health care provider and the patient,” Dr. Pongdee said. “It wasn’t like you could just put these things on and expect them to help. You still need that personal relationship to get the optimal results. We can have all this technology, but you still can’t take the people out of it.”

Dr. Mosnaim reported receiving current research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva; and past research grant support from AstraZeneca, Alk-Abello, and Genentech. She is immediate past president of the AAAAI, and directs the board of directors for the American Board of Allergy and Immunology. Dr. Anderson has served as a consultant for Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, and has received research support from Colorado Medicaid. Dr. McCulloch and Dr. Ramsey disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and the Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – Before considering oral steroids or biologic therapies, many people with difficult-to-control asthma can reduce symptoms by addressing medication adherence and inhaler technique – and digital monitoring devices can play a key role.

Often physicians “will approach a patient about a biologic if they’re not responding to standard therapy. But we need to sometimes go back to those basic building blocks, like, are you taking the standard therapy?” William C. Anderson, MD, codirector of the multidisciplinary asthma clinic at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, he and others presented data highlighting the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of digital monitoring devices for difficult-to-control asthma, the theme of the 2022s meeting.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) defines asthma as “difficult to control” if it remains uncontrolled despite medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a second controller or with maintenance oral steroids, or if the asthma requires high-dose treatment to curb symptoms and exacerbations. About 17% of adult asthma patients have difficult-to-control asthma, according to the 2021 GINA report. 

However, correcting for inhaling technique and adherence cuts the 17% down to just 3.7%, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, an allergist at NorthShore University HealthSystem outside Chicago and AAAAI immediate past president, told attendees at a Feb. 25 session on digital technologies for asthma management.

The CRITIKAL study, which reviewed data from more than 5,000 asthma patients, “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Mosnaim said. Sadly, it also shows that, from 1975 to 2014, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

As for ways to measure adherence, physician judgments tend to be inaccurate, patient self-reporting has proved unreliable, and prescription refill data doesn’t indicate whether patients actually used the medications. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.” 
 

Tracking adherence

A closing afternoon session featured three presentations on research tracking adherence and outcomes in difficult-to-treat asthma patients – two pediatric cohorts and one across all ages. All studies used the Propeller Health sensor, a Food and Drug Administration–cleared device that attaches to the patient’s inhaler and automatically collects information on where, when, and how often they use their medication. The sensor then sends that information to a data cloud accessible to the patient and their health care professional.

Dr. Anderson’s team scoured a nationwide Propeller Health database for 8,000 patients using the digital monitors with controller therapies for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study explored whether adherence differed for once-daily versus twice-daily medications, and if adherence differed based on patient age (4-60+ years).

For both asthma and COPD patients, those on once-daily regimens had higher medication adherence, compared with those who were prescribed twice-daily therapies. Plus, a greater proportion of once-daily patients met the prespecified 80% adherence threshold.

Looking across ages, medication use in the youngest group (aged 4-11 years) looked comparable with 30-somethings, “probably because parents are the ones giving the drug,” Dr. Anderson said. Mirroring patterns from other studies, adherence levels dipped in adolescents and young adults, relative to other age subsets.

Since this population-level analysis didn’t include individualized data on exacerbations or asthma control, “we can’t relate this to outcomes,” Dr. Anderson noted. But he said the data correlating medication use with adherence suggest that once-daily formulations may be the better option.

In one of the two pediatric studies, Matt McCulloch, MD, an allergy and immunology fellow working with Dr. Anderson, and colleagues reviewed charts of 40 children who received care at the Colorado Children’s multidisciplinary asthma clinic between 2018 and 2021. Half of these patients used Propeller Health sensors with their daily inhaled controller; the other patients were matched for age, ethnicity, sex, medication level, and disease control and severity – but had no electronic monitoring device.

On the whole, children who used digital monitoring for 12 months did not fare much better than matched controls on lung function (judged by forced expiratory volume) or asthma control (measured by Asthma Control Test scores).

However, within the digital monitoring group, patients who stayed on the Propeller system for 12 months did have better asthma control, fewer exacerbations, and improved asthma severity scores (measured by the Composite Asthma Severity Index), compared with when they first began digital monitoring. These children had all received care at the clinic for a while before their families opted for the electronic sensor, so “the effect wouldn’t have just been from starting in the clinic,” Dr. McCulloch said in an interview.

The gains came despite waning medication adherence. Similar to other digital monitoring studies, use of daily controller therapies in this retrospective analysis began at 50%-80% but dropped considerably during the first 4-5 months before settling into the 20%-30% range by 1 year.

Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented data from 20 children with difficult-to-treat asthma who received 8 weeks of a digital adherence intervention during a 12-month treatment period. They analyzed three subsets – each with interventions based on how well the patients were managing daily controller therapy at baseline.

One patient with high (>80%) baseline adherence just received digital monitoring. The seven patients who began the study with intermediate (50%-80%) adherence received digital monitoring plus prescriptive text messaging. And the 12 children with poorest (<50%) baseline adherence received digital monitoring and a telehealth session in which a behavioral health specialist helped them set goals and create strategies to overcome barriers – for example, keeping the inhaler near their toothbrush in order to pair medication use with a daily habit.

“Overall, we found that matching Propeller with a behavioral intervention really improved adherence,” Dr. Ramsey said in an interview. While patients were receiving the intervention, adherence averaged across all groups increased from 39% to 76%. However, once the intervention period ended, the group’s adherence regressed toward baseline (36%).

Although adherence did not associate with clinical gains in this small study, the use of digital monitoring to improve medication adherence has translated to better outcomes in other recent efforts.
 

Remote monitoring

In a quality improvement project in the United Kingdom, nurses asked difficult-to-control asthma patients if they understood how to use their corticosteroid/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) inhalers and if they were adhering to treatment guidelines.

Those who answered yes to these questions were invited to a 28-day study that involved swapping their steroid/LABA inhalers for a different controller/bronchodilator (fluticasone/salmeterol) with INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment), a device that not only tracks adherence but also uses acoustics to gauge inhaler technique.

Among the 23 patients who participated, many had better clinical outcomes after 28 days of INCA monitoring. As Dr. Mosnaim told attendees, “what was amazing is so many of the patients that had been these difficult-to-control asthmatics who would have gone on to oral steroids or perhaps a biologic – lo and behold, you put them on a digital inhaler, and what do you see?” In two-thirds of the patients, “you see FeNo [a test that measures airway inflammation by detecting nitric oxide in exhalations] goes down. You see spirometry improve. You see the asthma control questionnaire improve. You see blood eosinophils go down.”

And in a 2020 randomized trial, Dr. Mosnaim and colleagues recruited 100 adults with uncontrolled asthma who had prescriptions for a daily inhaled corticosteroid and a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) inhaler. Participants received Propeller sensors for their steroid and SABA inhalers. After a 2-week run-in period to calculate baseline corticosteroid adherence and SABA use for all participants, half the participants were randomly assigned to the control group, which had the app and sensor in silent mode, merely to collect data on medication use – whereas the treatment group received reminders, alerts, and monthly phone calls from providers who gave feedback on adherence and technique.

After 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often – as judged by a rise in the percentage of SABA-free days, compared with when they began the study. But the change in SABA-free days relative to baseline was more pronounced in the treatment group (19%) than in the control group (6%).

As seen in the other digital monitoring studies, adherence to daily corticosteroids fell with time, but the drop was milder in treated participants (2%) versus the control group (17%). So in this study, digital monitoring plus mobile app reminders and clinician feedback “prevented against fall in adherence to inhaled steroids over time,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

These results are “very encouraging” and offer “proof of concept that this type of remote monitoring could work,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. One limitation was that the study was too short to measure exacerbation rates. A yearlong analysis would be “really fascinating because you’d catch all the seasons of the year – all the pollen seasons, all these things that could exacerbate you. Some people’s asthma can be quite seasonal.”

More important, the clinical utility of digital sensors will depend on how physicians choose to use them. If the doctor puts out a “blanket recommendation for using it but doesn’t ask you about it or doesn’t use the data to inform your care, then I think people just lose engagement and lose excitement over it,” Dr. Ramsey said. But if the health care team “asks you about the data or looks at the data with you or shows you how valuable this can be to your care, then I think that changes things.”

Building these analyses and interactions into the clinic workflow isn’t trivial. “If you have this wealth of data coming in, how are you going to look at it? Are you going to have an individual person assigned to this role? How are you going to respond to alerts?” Dr. Anderson asked.

In addition, because some digital monitors issue alerts when a patient’s asthma is not well controlled, some providers worry about liability if “something bad were to happen if you had that data but didn’t act upon it,” he said. Yet he noted that remote data monitoring is already used routinely in other areas of medicine, such as managing diabetes and heart conditions, “and it’s not like people are getting dinged for that stuff.”

Another issue is cost. Insurance only covers digital monitors in select cases, but it’s a bit of a catch-22. Insurers “don’t want to cover it until they get the data, but you can’t get the data until insurance covers it,” said Dr. Anderson, who added that “this year we finally got CPT reimbursement codes for monitoring devices.”

On the whole, studies of digital medication monitors suggest that better outcomes require “a good partnership between the health care provider and the patient,” Dr. Pongdee said. “It wasn’t like you could just put these things on and expect them to help. You still need that personal relationship to get the optimal results. We can have all this technology, but you still can’t take the people out of it.”

Dr. Mosnaim reported receiving current research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva; and past research grant support from AstraZeneca, Alk-Abello, and Genentech. She is immediate past president of the AAAAI, and directs the board of directors for the American Board of Allergy and Immunology. Dr. Anderson has served as a consultant for Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, and has received research support from Colorado Medicaid. Dr. McCulloch and Dr. Ramsey disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and the Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – Before considering oral steroids or biologic therapies, many people with difficult-to-control asthma can reduce symptoms by addressing medication adherence and inhaler technique – and digital monitoring devices can play a key role.

Often physicians “will approach a patient about a biologic if they’re not responding to standard therapy. But we need to sometimes go back to those basic building blocks, like, are you taking the standard therapy?” William C. Anderson, MD, codirector of the multidisciplinary asthma clinic at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, he and others presented data highlighting the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of digital monitoring devices for difficult-to-control asthma, the theme of the 2022s meeting.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) defines asthma as “difficult to control” if it remains uncontrolled despite medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a second controller or with maintenance oral steroids, or if the asthma requires high-dose treatment to curb symptoms and exacerbations. About 17% of adult asthma patients have difficult-to-control asthma, according to the 2021 GINA report. 

However, correcting for inhaling technique and adherence cuts the 17% down to just 3.7%, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, an allergist at NorthShore University HealthSystem outside Chicago and AAAAI immediate past president, told attendees at a Feb. 25 session on digital technologies for asthma management.

The CRITIKAL study, which reviewed data from more than 5,000 asthma patients, “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Mosnaim said. Sadly, it also shows that, from 1975 to 2014, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

As for ways to measure adherence, physician judgments tend to be inaccurate, patient self-reporting has proved unreliable, and prescription refill data doesn’t indicate whether patients actually used the medications. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.” 
 

Tracking adherence

A closing afternoon session featured three presentations on research tracking adherence and outcomes in difficult-to-treat asthma patients – two pediatric cohorts and one across all ages. All studies used the Propeller Health sensor, a Food and Drug Administration–cleared device that attaches to the patient’s inhaler and automatically collects information on where, when, and how often they use their medication. The sensor then sends that information to a data cloud accessible to the patient and their health care professional.

Dr. Anderson’s team scoured a nationwide Propeller Health database for 8,000 patients using the digital monitors with controller therapies for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study explored whether adherence differed for once-daily versus twice-daily medications, and if adherence differed based on patient age (4-60+ years).

For both asthma and COPD patients, those on once-daily regimens had higher medication adherence, compared with those who were prescribed twice-daily therapies. Plus, a greater proportion of once-daily patients met the prespecified 80% adherence threshold.

Looking across ages, medication use in the youngest group (aged 4-11 years) looked comparable with 30-somethings, “probably because parents are the ones giving the drug,” Dr. Anderson said. Mirroring patterns from other studies, adherence levels dipped in adolescents and young adults, relative to other age subsets.

Since this population-level analysis didn’t include individualized data on exacerbations or asthma control, “we can’t relate this to outcomes,” Dr. Anderson noted. But he said the data correlating medication use with adherence suggest that once-daily formulations may be the better option.

In one of the two pediatric studies, Matt McCulloch, MD, an allergy and immunology fellow working with Dr. Anderson, and colleagues reviewed charts of 40 children who received care at the Colorado Children’s multidisciplinary asthma clinic between 2018 and 2021. Half of these patients used Propeller Health sensors with their daily inhaled controller; the other patients were matched for age, ethnicity, sex, medication level, and disease control and severity – but had no electronic monitoring device.

On the whole, children who used digital monitoring for 12 months did not fare much better than matched controls on lung function (judged by forced expiratory volume) or asthma control (measured by Asthma Control Test scores).

However, within the digital monitoring group, patients who stayed on the Propeller system for 12 months did have better asthma control, fewer exacerbations, and improved asthma severity scores (measured by the Composite Asthma Severity Index), compared with when they first began digital monitoring. These children had all received care at the clinic for a while before their families opted for the electronic sensor, so “the effect wouldn’t have just been from starting in the clinic,” Dr. McCulloch said in an interview.

The gains came despite waning medication adherence. Similar to other digital monitoring studies, use of daily controller therapies in this retrospective analysis began at 50%-80% but dropped considerably during the first 4-5 months before settling into the 20%-30% range by 1 year.

Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented data from 20 children with difficult-to-treat asthma who received 8 weeks of a digital adherence intervention during a 12-month treatment period. They analyzed three subsets – each with interventions based on how well the patients were managing daily controller therapy at baseline.

One patient with high (>80%) baseline adherence just received digital monitoring. The seven patients who began the study with intermediate (50%-80%) adherence received digital monitoring plus prescriptive text messaging. And the 12 children with poorest (<50%) baseline adherence received digital monitoring and a telehealth session in which a behavioral health specialist helped them set goals and create strategies to overcome barriers – for example, keeping the inhaler near their toothbrush in order to pair medication use with a daily habit.

“Overall, we found that matching Propeller with a behavioral intervention really improved adherence,” Dr. Ramsey said in an interview. While patients were receiving the intervention, adherence averaged across all groups increased from 39% to 76%. However, once the intervention period ended, the group’s adherence regressed toward baseline (36%).

Although adherence did not associate with clinical gains in this small study, the use of digital monitoring to improve medication adherence has translated to better outcomes in other recent efforts.
 

Remote monitoring

In a quality improvement project in the United Kingdom, nurses asked difficult-to-control asthma patients if they understood how to use their corticosteroid/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) inhalers and if they were adhering to treatment guidelines.

Those who answered yes to these questions were invited to a 28-day study that involved swapping their steroid/LABA inhalers for a different controller/bronchodilator (fluticasone/salmeterol) with INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment), a device that not only tracks adherence but also uses acoustics to gauge inhaler technique.

Among the 23 patients who participated, many had better clinical outcomes after 28 days of INCA monitoring. As Dr. Mosnaim told attendees, “what was amazing is so many of the patients that had been these difficult-to-control asthmatics who would have gone on to oral steroids or perhaps a biologic – lo and behold, you put them on a digital inhaler, and what do you see?” In two-thirds of the patients, “you see FeNo [a test that measures airway inflammation by detecting nitric oxide in exhalations] goes down. You see spirometry improve. You see the asthma control questionnaire improve. You see blood eosinophils go down.”

And in a 2020 randomized trial, Dr. Mosnaim and colleagues recruited 100 adults with uncontrolled asthma who had prescriptions for a daily inhaled corticosteroid and a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) inhaler. Participants received Propeller sensors for their steroid and SABA inhalers. After a 2-week run-in period to calculate baseline corticosteroid adherence and SABA use for all participants, half the participants were randomly assigned to the control group, which had the app and sensor in silent mode, merely to collect data on medication use – whereas the treatment group received reminders, alerts, and monthly phone calls from providers who gave feedback on adherence and technique.

After 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often – as judged by a rise in the percentage of SABA-free days, compared with when they began the study. But the change in SABA-free days relative to baseline was more pronounced in the treatment group (19%) than in the control group (6%).

As seen in the other digital monitoring studies, adherence to daily corticosteroids fell with time, but the drop was milder in treated participants (2%) versus the control group (17%). So in this study, digital monitoring plus mobile app reminders and clinician feedback “prevented against fall in adherence to inhaled steroids over time,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

These results are “very encouraging” and offer “proof of concept that this type of remote monitoring could work,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. One limitation was that the study was too short to measure exacerbation rates. A yearlong analysis would be “really fascinating because you’d catch all the seasons of the year – all the pollen seasons, all these things that could exacerbate you. Some people’s asthma can be quite seasonal.”

More important, the clinical utility of digital sensors will depend on how physicians choose to use them. If the doctor puts out a “blanket recommendation for using it but doesn’t ask you about it or doesn’t use the data to inform your care, then I think people just lose engagement and lose excitement over it,” Dr. Ramsey said. But if the health care team “asks you about the data or looks at the data with you or shows you how valuable this can be to your care, then I think that changes things.”

Building these analyses and interactions into the clinic workflow isn’t trivial. “If you have this wealth of data coming in, how are you going to look at it? Are you going to have an individual person assigned to this role? How are you going to respond to alerts?” Dr. Anderson asked.

In addition, because some digital monitors issue alerts when a patient’s asthma is not well controlled, some providers worry about liability if “something bad were to happen if you had that data but didn’t act upon it,” he said. Yet he noted that remote data monitoring is already used routinely in other areas of medicine, such as managing diabetes and heart conditions, “and it’s not like people are getting dinged for that stuff.”

Another issue is cost. Insurance only covers digital monitors in select cases, but it’s a bit of a catch-22. Insurers “don’t want to cover it until they get the data, but you can’t get the data until insurance covers it,” said Dr. Anderson, who added that “this year we finally got CPT reimbursement codes for monitoring devices.”

On the whole, studies of digital medication monitors suggest that better outcomes require “a good partnership between the health care provider and the patient,” Dr. Pongdee said. “It wasn’t like you could just put these things on and expect them to help. You still need that personal relationship to get the optimal results. We can have all this technology, but you still can’t take the people out of it.”

Dr. Mosnaim reported receiving current research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva; and past research grant support from AstraZeneca, Alk-Abello, and Genentech. She is immediate past president of the AAAAI, and directs the board of directors for the American Board of Allergy and Immunology. Dr. Anderson has served as a consultant for Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, and has received research support from Colorado Medicaid. Dr. McCulloch and Dr. Ramsey disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and the Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large, blinded study of peanut-allergic toddlers published in The Lancet, 71% of treated participants could safely consume 5,000 mg of peanut protein – equivalent to nearly 17 peanuts – after 2½ years on oral immunotherapy. Even after stopping maintenance dosing for the next 6 months, more than 1 in 5 maintained that level of protection, and nearly 3 in 5 still met the 600-mg benchmark (about 2 peanuts) set by the phase 3 PALISADE trial of the FDA-approved peanut-flour product, Palforzia.

About 2% of children in the United States are allergic to peanuts, and most will not outgrow this allergy. In addition, other research suggests that the immune system is more malleable during early childhood.

Consistent with this idea, prior research showed that toddlers can succeed with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) – a regimen that builds tolerance through small amounts of the allergen consumed daily for months. However, that trial (DEVIL) was small, was conducted at a single site, and had no placebo group.

In contrast, the Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children Trial (IMPACT) enrolled 146 children aged 1-3 years at five academic medical centers in the United States – the first placebo-controlled study of OIT in this younger age group.

“This is a well done study,” Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “We have seen improved outcomes in OIT, both in our own experience and other published studies, so while this is no surprise, the outcomes and large number of participants contribute to this being a really exciting publication.”

The trial was long and demanding for families. Toddlers who reacted to 500 mg or less of peanut protein in an entry food challenge were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive daily peanut flour or oat flour placebo. After initial dose escalation (from 0.1 mg to 6 mg) and biweekly buildup to a 2,000-mg target dose by week 30, participants continued with 20,00-mg daily maintenance dosing through week 134 – at which point they underwent a food challenge. They then went off treatment for 26 weeks and had another food challenge (week 160). In addition, participants came in for skin-prick and blood tests at baseline and at weeks 30, 82, 134, and 160.

In the placebo group, only 23 of 50 participants (46%) completed the study. “If you did 2½ years of this and then bombed the food challenge, you probably can guess that you were not on the real thing. And they were still asked to come back in 6 months and do it again. So, sure enough, a big chunk of those people chose not to continue, and you can’t blame them,” said Lancet co-author Edwin Kim, MD, in an interview. Dr. Kim directs the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

There was attrition in the treatment group as well. Among 96 children initially assigned to this arm, 68 (71%) passed the 5,000-mg peanut challenge at week 134 – but 11 withdrew in the study’s off-treatment phase. “It was a very tough decision. How much do you give toward science?” said Dr. Kim. “When push came to shove, some of the families couldn’t pull the trigger to potentially give up what they worked so hard for.”

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 96 treated participants (21%) could still tolerate 5,000 mg of peanut protein after going off therapy for 6 months. That translates to a 29% remission rate in the per-protocol subset (n = 70) who completed the study. Forty (57%) of these completers safely consumed at least 1,755 mg of peanut (cumulative dose). By comparison, the PALISADE trial of Palforzia used a 10,430-mg cumulative peanut dose to measure treatment efficacy.

On safety, 98% of treated participants – but also 80% of the placebo group – reported reactions, of which 35 were treated with epinephrine in 21 children receiving peanut OIT.

While some have noted that epinephrine use seemed high, Dr. Kim said, “we’re actually OK with that, because we’d much rather they overtreat and make sure that 1-year-old is safe than take any chances.” Overall, the safety profile looks similar to prior OIT studies of older children. “I think it suggests that, yeah, side effects will happen, [but] they’re all manageable, and people are not anaphylaxing left and right.”

On remission and immunologic parameters, benefits seemed stronger in the youngest subset (12 to 24 months), particularly those with lower peanut-specific IgE at baseline. These trends require further analyses, though, given the limited number of participants under 24 months.

Another noteworthy observation from longitudinal peanut-specific IgE trends in the placebo group: “Avoidance may not be benign,” Dr. Kim said. “If you look at their labs, they don’t stay flat. They actually go up.” The results jibe with the long-held idea of an early window of opportunity while a child’s immune system is maturing. “If you can grab this kid when his IgE is 10, versus next year when it might be 50, maybe you’ll get a different treatment effect,” Dr. Kim said. “We don’t know that for sure, but the placebo labs kind of point toward that.”

Beyond the science, there are practical advantages to starting OIT early. “Trying to convince a 9-year-old who’s been petrified of peanuts for their whole life to start doing this every day is not an easy task,” whereas with a 1- or 2-year-old, “you build it into their routine,” Dr. Kim said.

Plus, some say there’s no need for families to wait for regulatory approval of additional commercial products for very young children. Though some have advocated against the use of “grocery store” products, most peanut OIT research “has used the same 12% light roast defatted peanut flour used in IMPACT,” noted Marcus S. Shaker, MD, professor of pediatrics and of medicine at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and a physician at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. The commercial product (Palforzia) and grocery-store products “come from the exact same source in the U.S.,” he said in an interview. “Both are an option for parents to consider, but a commercial product is not, nor has [it] ever been, a necessity.”

Dr. Bjelac reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network, Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Dr. Shaker has participated in research funded by DBV, is cochair of the AAAAI/ACAAI Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, is an associate editor at the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and is an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large, blinded study of peanut-allergic toddlers published in The Lancet, 71% of treated participants could safely consume 5,000 mg of peanut protein – equivalent to nearly 17 peanuts – after 2½ years on oral immunotherapy. Even after stopping maintenance dosing for the next 6 months, more than 1 in 5 maintained that level of protection, and nearly 3 in 5 still met the 600-mg benchmark (about 2 peanuts) set by the phase 3 PALISADE trial of the FDA-approved peanut-flour product, Palforzia.

About 2% of children in the United States are allergic to peanuts, and most will not outgrow this allergy. In addition, other research suggests that the immune system is more malleable during early childhood.

Consistent with this idea, prior research showed that toddlers can succeed with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) – a regimen that builds tolerance through small amounts of the allergen consumed daily for months. However, that trial (DEVIL) was small, was conducted at a single site, and had no placebo group.

In contrast, the Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children Trial (IMPACT) enrolled 146 children aged 1-3 years at five academic medical centers in the United States – the first placebo-controlled study of OIT in this younger age group.

“This is a well done study,” Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “We have seen improved outcomes in OIT, both in our own experience and other published studies, so while this is no surprise, the outcomes and large number of participants contribute to this being a really exciting publication.”

The trial was long and demanding for families. Toddlers who reacted to 500 mg or less of peanut protein in an entry food challenge were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive daily peanut flour or oat flour placebo. After initial dose escalation (from 0.1 mg to 6 mg) and biweekly buildup to a 2,000-mg target dose by week 30, participants continued with 20,00-mg daily maintenance dosing through week 134 – at which point they underwent a food challenge. They then went off treatment for 26 weeks and had another food challenge (week 160). In addition, participants came in for skin-prick and blood tests at baseline and at weeks 30, 82, 134, and 160.

In the placebo group, only 23 of 50 participants (46%) completed the study. “If you did 2½ years of this and then bombed the food challenge, you probably can guess that you were not on the real thing. And they were still asked to come back in 6 months and do it again. So, sure enough, a big chunk of those people chose not to continue, and you can’t blame them,” said Lancet co-author Edwin Kim, MD, in an interview. Dr. Kim directs the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

There was attrition in the treatment group as well. Among 96 children initially assigned to this arm, 68 (71%) passed the 5,000-mg peanut challenge at week 134 – but 11 withdrew in the study’s off-treatment phase. “It was a very tough decision. How much do you give toward science?” said Dr. Kim. “When push came to shove, some of the families couldn’t pull the trigger to potentially give up what they worked so hard for.”

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 96 treated participants (21%) could still tolerate 5,000 mg of peanut protein after going off therapy for 6 months. That translates to a 29% remission rate in the per-protocol subset (n = 70) who completed the study. Forty (57%) of these completers safely consumed at least 1,755 mg of peanut (cumulative dose). By comparison, the PALISADE trial of Palforzia used a 10,430-mg cumulative peanut dose to measure treatment efficacy.

On safety, 98% of treated participants – but also 80% of the placebo group – reported reactions, of which 35 were treated with epinephrine in 21 children receiving peanut OIT.

While some have noted that epinephrine use seemed high, Dr. Kim said, “we’re actually OK with that, because we’d much rather they overtreat and make sure that 1-year-old is safe than take any chances.” Overall, the safety profile looks similar to prior OIT studies of older children. “I think it suggests that, yeah, side effects will happen, [but] they’re all manageable, and people are not anaphylaxing left and right.”

On remission and immunologic parameters, benefits seemed stronger in the youngest subset (12 to 24 months), particularly those with lower peanut-specific IgE at baseline. These trends require further analyses, though, given the limited number of participants under 24 months.

Another noteworthy observation from longitudinal peanut-specific IgE trends in the placebo group: “Avoidance may not be benign,” Dr. Kim said. “If you look at their labs, they don’t stay flat. They actually go up.” The results jibe with the long-held idea of an early window of opportunity while a child’s immune system is maturing. “If you can grab this kid when his IgE is 10, versus next year when it might be 50, maybe you’ll get a different treatment effect,” Dr. Kim said. “We don’t know that for sure, but the placebo labs kind of point toward that.”

Beyond the science, there are practical advantages to starting OIT early. “Trying to convince a 9-year-old who’s been petrified of peanuts for their whole life to start doing this every day is not an easy task,” whereas with a 1- or 2-year-old, “you build it into their routine,” Dr. Kim said.

Plus, some say there’s no need for families to wait for regulatory approval of additional commercial products for very young children. Though some have advocated against the use of “grocery store” products, most peanut OIT research “has used the same 12% light roast defatted peanut flour used in IMPACT,” noted Marcus S. Shaker, MD, professor of pediatrics and of medicine at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and a physician at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. The commercial product (Palforzia) and grocery-store products “come from the exact same source in the U.S.,” he said in an interview. “Both are an option for parents to consider, but a commercial product is not, nor has [it] ever been, a necessity.”

Dr. Bjelac reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network, Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Dr. Shaker has participated in research funded by DBV, is cochair of the AAAAI/ACAAI Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, is an associate editor at the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and is an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large, blinded study of peanut-allergic toddlers published in The Lancet, 71% of treated participants could safely consume 5,000 mg of peanut protein – equivalent to nearly 17 peanuts – after 2½ years on oral immunotherapy. Even after stopping maintenance dosing for the next 6 months, more than 1 in 5 maintained that level of protection, and nearly 3 in 5 still met the 600-mg benchmark (about 2 peanuts) set by the phase 3 PALISADE trial of the FDA-approved peanut-flour product, Palforzia.

About 2% of children in the United States are allergic to peanuts, and most will not outgrow this allergy. In addition, other research suggests that the immune system is more malleable during early childhood.

Consistent with this idea, prior research showed that toddlers can succeed with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) – a regimen that builds tolerance through small amounts of the allergen consumed daily for months. However, that trial (DEVIL) was small, was conducted at a single site, and had no placebo group.

In contrast, the Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children Trial (IMPACT) enrolled 146 children aged 1-3 years at five academic medical centers in the United States – the first placebo-controlled study of OIT in this younger age group.

“This is a well done study,” Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “We have seen improved outcomes in OIT, both in our own experience and other published studies, so while this is no surprise, the outcomes and large number of participants contribute to this being a really exciting publication.”

The trial was long and demanding for families. Toddlers who reacted to 500 mg or less of peanut protein in an entry food challenge were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive daily peanut flour or oat flour placebo. After initial dose escalation (from 0.1 mg to 6 mg) and biweekly buildup to a 2,000-mg target dose by week 30, participants continued with 20,00-mg daily maintenance dosing through week 134 – at which point they underwent a food challenge. They then went off treatment for 26 weeks and had another food challenge (week 160). In addition, participants came in for skin-prick and blood tests at baseline and at weeks 30, 82, 134, and 160.

In the placebo group, only 23 of 50 participants (46%) completed the study. “If you did 2½ years of this and then bombed the food challenge, you probably can guess that you were not on the real thing. And they were still asked to come back in 6 months and do it again. So, sure enough, a big chunk of those people chose not to continue, and you can’t blame them,” said Lancet co-author Edwin Kim, MD, in an interview. Dr. Kim directs the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

There was attrition in the treatment group as well. Among 96 children initially assigned to this arm, 68 (71%) passed the 5,000-mg peanut challenge at week 134 – but 11 withdrew in the study’s off-treatment phase. “It was a very tough decision. How much do you give toward science?” said Dr. Kim. “When push came to shove, some of the families couldn’t pull the trigger to potentially give up what they worked so hard for.”

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 96 treated participants (21%) could still tolerate 5,000 mg of peanut protein after going off therapy for 6 months. That translates to a 29% remission rate in the per-protocol subset (n = 70) who completed the study. Forty (57%) of these completers safely consumed at least 1,755 mg of peanut (cumulative dose). By comparison, the PALISADE trial of Palforzia used a 10,430-mg cumulative peanut dose to measure treatment efficacy.

On safety, 98% of treated participants – but also 80% of the placebo group – reported reactions, of which 35 were treated with epinephrine in 21 children receiving peanut OIT.

While some have noted that epinephrine use seemed high, Dr. Kim said, “we’re actually OK with that, because we’d much rather they overtreat and make sure that 1-year-old is safe than take any chances.” Overall, the safety profile looks similar to prior OIT studies of older children. “I think it suggests that, yeah, side effects will happen, [but] they’re all manageable, and people are not anaphylaxing left and right.”

On remission and immunologic parameters, benefits seemed stronger in the youngest subset (12 to 24 months), particularly those with lower peanut-specific IgE at baseline. These trends require further analyses, though, given the limited number of participants under 24 months.

Another noteworthy observation from longitudinal peanut-specific IgE trends in the placebo group: “Avoidance may not be benign,” Dr. Kim said. “If you look at their labs, they don’t stay flat. They actually go up.” The results jibe with the long-held idea of an early window of opportunity while a child’s immune system is maturing. “If you can grab this kid when his IgE is 10, versus next year when it might be 50, maybe you’ll get a different treatment effect,” Dr. Kim said. “We don’t know that for sure, but the placebo labs kind of point toward that.”

Beyond the science, there are practical advantages to starting OIT early. “Trying to convince a 9-year-old who’s been petrified of peanuts for their whole life to start doing this every day is not an easy task,” whereas with a 1- or 2-year-old, “you build it into their routine,” Dr. Kim said.

Plus, some say there’s no need for families to wait for regulatory approval of additional commercial products for very young children. Though some have advocated against the use of “grocery store” products, most peanut OIT research “has used the same 12% light roast defatted peanut flour used in IMPACT,” noted Marcus S. Shaker, MD, professor of pediatrics and of medicine at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and a physician at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. The commercial product (Palforzia) and grocery-store products “come from the exact same source in the U.S.,” he said in an interview. “Both are an option for parents to consider, but a commercial product is not, nor has [it] ever been, a necessity.”

Dr. Bjelac reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network, Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Dr. Shaker has participated in research funded by DBV, is cochair of the AAAAI/ACAAI Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, is an associate editor at the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and is an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.